Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Imelda Phelan

Regatta Great Outdoors Limited

Representatives

Brid McCoy AMOSS Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00027862-001

18/04/2019

The complaint was submitted to the WRC on the 18th April, 2019. The Complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing which took place on the 16th December, 2019. I am satisfied the Complainant was properly notified of the hearing by letter from the WRC dated the 31st October, 2019. I have also been furnished with various emails between the Complainant and the WRC dated 5th, 6th and 9th December, 2019. On foot of these email exchanges, I am satisfied that the Complainant was offered a postponement due to stated work commitments but that she declined. In that regard, the Complainant stated in her email to the WRC of the 9th December, 2019 that she did not wish to arrange a postponement, that she had nothing further to add to her complaint statements and that she did not wish to attend a hearing in the future.

The Respondent attended the hearing.

In all the circumstances, I proceeded with the case on the 16th December, 2019.

The Complainant’s case was outlined in her Complainant Form to the WRC and in a further statement furnished to the WRC on the 24th November, 2019. In that regard, the Complainant outlined that she had been discriminated against and treated unlawfully in the course of an interview for a position in the Respondent company on the 17th January, 2019. The Complainant’s case as outlined in her written statements was that her unlawful treatment was contrary to Section 6 of the Employment Equality Acts [1998-2018] in respect of the family status ground and Section 8 in relation to access to employment.

The Respondent stated that the company did not discriminate against the Complainant on the basis of family status. The Respondent stated there was a general discussion about the Complainant’s family status but characterised this as a ‘casual reference’. The Respondent stated this was not made or intended to be made in a discriminatory manner. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had not suggested in her complaint to the WRC that she was denied the position “as a consequence of the purported casual discussion in relation to her family status at the interview”. The Respondent pointed to its equal opportunity policy and stated that it operated an interview template and that all applicants were questioned on flexibility given the nature of the business. The Respondent stated there was nothing remarkable about the interview, that the complaint was misconceived and should be dismissed.

A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the Complainant on the 18th April, 2019 alleging that the Respondent contravened the provisions of the Employment Equality Acts [1998-2018] on the family status ground as regards access to employment. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. An adjudication hearing for that purpose was held on the 16th December, 2019. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing.  Having checked the file and checked with the WRC office, I am satisfied that the said Complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held.  In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly.

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, [1998 – 2018] requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act. For the reasons outlined, I decide this complaint is not well founded.